The Mental Health Crisis: Are We Treating the Disease, or the Dis-Ease?

Author: Celina Hu

October, 2025

Mental health has become a highly evolved topic of interest as rates of mental illness and stress related health problems continue to rise, unresolved by our treatment models. We have overwhelmed counseling centers, not enough providers, and issues with access to adequate care. There’s this growing feeling of unease and frustration. However, we can look at this from a different perspective. What if the real issue isn’t just how we are treating mental health, but that we’re overlooking the impact of our daily habits, and even contributing to the problem through our collective mindset? From the societal lens, we observe that a consistently pessimistic environment around mental health can set up expectations for negative mental health statuses. This then forcefully develops habits, beneficial or detrimental, which are critical for facing mental health challenges throughout our lives (Arango et al., 2018). By focusing so heavily on symptoms of mental disorder, we may be missing the bigger picture -  the underlying causes of mental wellbeing.

The Medical Model: A Band-Aid on a Broken Bone

The mental health model in the US is almost entirely built on the medical model. When we treat people, we diagnose, and offer support to manage symptoms. However, a critical point is: we usually aren't looking for the root cause. For someone who is dealing with a mental health disorder, this means treating the symptoms is likely to result in the problems resurfacing. Medications prescribed earlier, or early intervention can result in long term care rather than strengthening mental health.. While this therapeutic approach can absolutely be seen as lifesaving for those with severe mental illness, it should not be the go-to answer for the vast majority of us dealing with the everyday stresses and strains of modern life. Why? Because much of human suffering cannot simply be diagnosed by the DSM-5 (Wong & Laird, 2023). Difficulties like big societal issues, feeling existentially lonely, and complex human experiences often get overlooked by a purely diagnostic and pharmaceutical approach. 

What we’re really concerned about is the steady decline in “flourishing” - which is a state of positive mental health where you feel purpose, engagement, and connection. This decline really becomes obvious when you look at the growing problem of loneliness we’re seeing across all age groups and backgrounds. As Cacioppo and Cacioppo (2018) showed in “The growing problem of loneliness,” this rise in subjective loneliness - that feeling of disconnect - is destroying the crucial element of social connection everywhere. This, in turn, can have a negative impact on other areas of flourishing. For instance, it can lower someone’s sense of purpose by making them feel a lower sense of belonging or contribution. It can also reduce engagement because the mental and physical toll of loneliness can quickly drain someone’s energy and motivation. Therefore, it appears that this rise in loneliness is deeply intertwined with a decline in our ability to flourish. We prefer to look at loneliness and other symptoms resulting from stress and distress as preventable rather than diagnosable problems.

The Sociogenic Illness Hypothesis: Is Society Making Us Sick?

Sociogenic illness refers to physical or psychological symptoms that spread through social networks, often without a clear biological reason. Could it be that our constant focus on mental illness is actually creating a self-fulfilling prophecy?

Think about this for a second:

When you’re constantly surrounded by discussion of mental health problems, it creates an environment where your body and mind can become highly susceptible to those ideas. The nocebo effect (Răducan-Florea et al., 2024) explains this effectively, demonstrating how negative expectations, reinforced by societal narratives, can manifest as genuine or psychological symptoms, essentially predicting the same distress they describe. While this does not imply mental health challenges are not real, it does suggest that the way we talk about them can heavily influence their prevalence and presentation within a population. 

Also, stigma often seems to be a fundamental part of how our society works, especially in how it influences how individuals think about and deal with mental health challenges. This creates a loop, where stigma influences how individuals think, and how individuals think can end up affecting the severity of stigma present. When mental health struggles are exclusively labeled as “illness”, there’s a significant risk that this categorization can unintentionally cause the existing stigma to worsen. While acknowledging the reality and severity of diagnosable mental illnesses, an overemphasis on the pathology framework for all mental health challenges can intensify negative perceptions and hinder a more holistic understanding of well-being. This ends up making people less likely to build stress resiliency and utilize the support and resources available to them to cope effectively with life's challenges.  Furthermore, fear of judgement leads to the reluctance to seek help, as it might be seen as a sign of weakness or helplessness. Concurrently, self-stigma, or an individual’s internalized negative attitudes towards mental illness, might make people less inclined to seek professional help for themselves (Angermeyer et al., 2017). This “two sides to the same coin” dynamic creates an environment where acknowledging and addressing mental health challenges – viewed through the lens of “disease” – becomes something to conceal rather than openly embrace. This impedes the desire to seek appropriate support when needed.

While technological and medical advancements in mental health treatment over the past century are undeniable, a prevalent focus remains on symptom identification and management rather than addressing the actual root causes of mental health challenges. For example wearables that identify stress signals, rating scales and surveys for early identification of symptoms, and pharmacological improvements.  This over-reliance on a clinical model, which then often includes medication and counseling, can inadvertently cause us to overlook the crucial role of an individual’s environment in contributing to their distress. The conditions in which we live, work, and interact are all critical drivers of mental distress. Addressing these as individual pathological issues suggests that a population of people are mentally ill for coping poorly with serious systemic issues rather than treating the systemic issues that are causing distress across populations. A shift to a community based  approach to mental health is needed to transform our shared environment, provide infrastructure that builds resilience, and naturally improves coping.

An Injustice of Well-Being: A Call for a Paradigm Shift

The current state of mental health treatments and care presents a significant challenge. Its intense focus on symptom management ignores the fundamental human capacity for mental well-being. This approach mirrors minor issues seen in other healthcare occupations, such as doctor burnout, where simply urging individuals to be more resilient isn’t enough without big systemic changes (Squiers et al., 2017). Our aim should be to foster environments and practices that support mental health as a natural aspect of human experience.

A key first step is to prioritize prevention over treatment. Strong prevention strategies are absolutely essential in mental health, covering everything from early childhood interventions to programs for everyone (Arango et al., 2018). We can do this by investing in population health and well-being initiatives, primary prevention programs, comprehensive mental health practices across entire schools and campuses, and community initiatives designed to teach emotional intelligence and resilience. These methods are vital for creating environments that build better daily health and proactive well-being.

The second big step involves challenging the common idea that mental health is only about not being sick. We have to move past the idea that just being free of a diagnosis means you’re thriving. As Keyes (2002) put it, true mental health is about “flourishing”. We need to understand that real mental well-being is an active, dynamic pursuit of a rich and fulfilling life, rather than just a passive escape from distress.

Third, instead of primarily zeroing in on what we think are individual weaknesses as the root causes of mental health concerns, we need to start encouraging and building on existing strengths. People should be empowered to recognize and use their inherent abilities, which builds a sense of empowerment and agency. This approach isn’t just theory. A critical review by Tse et al. (2016) found growing evidence of improved outcomes, including fewer hospitalization, better employment, more education, and improved personal factors like self-efficacy and hope. By focusing on what’s strong, rather than just what’s wrong, we can truly foster recovery and well-being, even when facing tough challenges

It's Time to Treat the Dis-Ease

While it’s undeniable that it is complex, the current mental health crisis can be effectively addressed by acknowledging that well-being isn’t a luxury, but a basic human need. By focusing on prevention and embracing strength-based approaches, we can build a society where everyone truly has the chance to thrive, rather than just survive. It’s absolutely vital that we move beyond simply treating the disease; instead, we must proactively address the 'dis-ease' that’s affecting our society and take back our collective mental health.

References

2025 American Psychiatric Association. (n.d.). What is the DSM?. Psychiatry.org - What is the DSM? https://www.psychiatry.org/patients-families/what-is-the-dsm 

Angermeyer, M. C., van der Auwera, S., Carta, M. G., & Schomerus, G. (2017). Public attitudes towards psychiatry and psychiatric treatment at the beginning of the 21st Century: A systematic review and meta‐analysis of population surveys. World Psychiatry, 16(1), 50–61. https://doi.org/10.1002/wps.20383

Arango, C., Díaz-Caneja, C. M., McGorry, P. D., Rapoport, J., Sommer, I. E., Vorstman, J. A., McDaid, D., Marín, O., Serrano-Drozdowskyj, E., Freedman, R., & Carpenter, W. (2018). Preventive Strategies for Mental Health. The Lancet Psychiatry, 5(7), 591–604. https://doi.org/10.1016/s2215-0366(18)30057-9

Brenner, G. H. (2025, July 6). Uncovering the role of self-stigma in clinical depression. Psychology Today. https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/experimentations/202507/uncovering-the-role-of-self-stigma-in-clinical-depression 

Cacioppo, J. T., & Cacioppo, S. (2018). The growing problem of loneliness. The Lancet, 391(10119), 426. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0140-6736(18)30142-9 

Cherry, K. (2024, June 25). How self efficacy helps you achieve your goals. Verywell Mind. https://www.verywellmind.com/what-is-self-efficacy-2795954 

Kate. (2025, January 17). What are population health initiatives and how can they benefit your organization?. IncentFit. https://incentfit.com/wellness-word/what-are-population-health-initiatives-and-how-can-they-benefit-your-organization/ 

Keyes, C. L. (2002). The Mental Health Continuum: From languishing to flourishing in life. Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 43(2), 207. https://doi.org/10.2307/3090197

Primary, secondary and tertiary prevention. Institute for Work & Health. (2015, April). https://www.iwh.on.ca/what-researchers-mean-by/primary-secondary-and-tertiary-prevention 

Răducan-Florea, I.-V., Leaşu, F. G., Dinu, E. A., & Rogozea, L. M. (2024). The nocebo effect: A bias in clinical practice—an ethical approach. American Journal of Therapeutics, 31(5). https://doi.org/10.1097/mjt.0000000000001730 

Squiers, J. J., Lobdell, K. W., Fann, J. I., & DiMaio, J. M. (2017). Physician Burnout: Are we treating the symptoms instead of the disease? The Annals of Thoracic Surgery, 104(4), 1117–1122. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.athoracsur.2017.08.009

Tse, S., Tsoi, E. W., Hamilton, B., O’Hagan, M., Shepherd, G., Slade, M., Whitley, R., & Petrakis, M. (2016). Uses of strength-based interventions for people with serious mental illness: A critical review. International Journal of Social Psychiatry, 62(3), 281–291. https://doi.org/10.1177/0020764015623970 

Wong, P. T., & Laird, D. (2023). Varieties of suffering in the clinical setting: Re-envisioning mental health beyond the medical model. Frontiers in Psychology, 14. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2023.1155845